Do you remember this?

[liberty]

The world holds its collective breath waiting for you to be able to substantiate your fantasy world.

I doubt it.

[Scooter]

Oh, you caught the sarcasm, did you?

Guess that summa cum laude associate's degree from the University of East Butt Crack served some purpose after all.

[loCAtek]

Wassever, I like sean and Gob too, but they don't care unless you agree with them.

[Gob]

Wassever, I like sean and Gob too, but they don't care unless you agree with them.

"Planet Earth calling Planet Pissed, could you clarify what this has to do with anything at all please?"

[Scooter]

She's crocked. Again.

[Sean]

If anyone else had posted that I would assume that they had simply posted in the wrong thread.

But in this case I am inclined to believe that she thinks it makes perfect sense exactly where it is...

[Lord Jim]

"leftists" are not the enemies of democracy, and that there is in fact no government/communist plot to imprison Americans in FEMA reeducation camps,

Well, laying aside the bit about the FEMA camps....

Sue, I recall that in the past you seem to have expressed this rather odd view of the left that precludes the possibility of leftist totalitarianism. I seem to remember your talking about favoring democracy being inherent to being a socialist. (Or something similar that was equally peculiar)

In your view, are none of the "gentlemen" on the list I posted "leftists"? That would certainly come as news to them. I've never known anyone else in my life, (and I know my share of lefties) who would attempt to argue that leftists can't be autocrats. Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems; Democratic Pluralism and Totalitarianism are political systems. There is absolutely nothing inherent about any economic system that precludes a dictatorial political system. (or a democratic one)

I won't say your view on this is unique, (There are six billion people on the planet; surely somebody else somewhere holds it) but it's at the least an extreme minority view. Leftists can embrace dictatorship just as easily as rightists can; history provides overwhelming proof for this.

[loCAtek]

Chingo, I don't have to be chocked to like Gob and Sean, do I?

[Rick]

Chingo, I don't have to be chocked to like Gob and Sean, do I?

?

[Gob]

I've got that for you Keld

Chingo, I don't have to be chocked to like Gob and Sean, do I?

Should read; "I am unfettered by the need to post on topic, or even sensibly, as I do not come here for debate, but to gain attention."

[The Hen]

She is just wanting to ruin things here. It is her way. That is the type of person she is.

A lying person that will never admit any wrong doing. Exactly the sort of person I never associate with.

I gave up on her some time back. She had given up on herself quite a considerably long time before that.

[loCAtek]

Wow, add Hen to the 'couldn't care less' if you like them, category. They insist on control freakishness; like saying they ignore, you but they don't.

They just hope it controls you, that much more.

...but it don't.

[liberty]

To all, the words of the transmitter as received by the receiver have only the power the receiver assigns them. Communications 101. Out there in the real world the words of others could do you harm by effecting your business or relationships that you value. But here does it really matter?

[dales]

[Scooter]

They just hope it controls you

There's only one thing that controls you

And it's not letting go anytime soon.

[Lord Jim]

Okay...

I think I can explain this...

I can't explain what brought it on, but I think I can explain the meaning of the words and the context; the key to understanding it is to realize there's a typo:

When I first saw this:

Chingo, I don't have to be chocked to like Gob and Sean, do I?

Coming right after a post of mine, I thought it was supposed to be a "response" to my post, and my reaction was much the same as Keld's.... I couldn't understand WTF that was supposed to have to do with what I had said....

But if you go back a few posts, it becomes a lot clearer:

LoCa said:

Wassever, I like sean and Gob too, but they don't care unless you agree with them.

(Now I have absolutely no idea why this was posted. I've looked back a number of posts prior to this one, and can't see what would have spurred it, but if you want to try and understand the "Chingo" post, this is the starting point.)

After this post Scooter says:

She's crocked. Again.

Okay is everyone still with me so far?

So when she says this:

Chingo, I don't have to be chocked to like Gob and Sean, do I?

"Chingo" is Scooter. "Chocked" is a typo for the word "crocked"...(I have to say a typo when one is denying being intoxicated is unfortunate, but there you are)

So if you make these corrections, and strip away all the other posts from other posters in-between, and the extraneous comments in her posts, and make the correction and clarification I suggested, the exchange looks like this:

LoCa: "I like Sean and Gob"

Scooter: "She's crocked. Again."

LoCa: "Scooter, I don't have to be crocked to like Gob and Sean, do I?"

See? Now it makes perfect sense.....

What do I win?




(Of course as I said, I'm still not able to explain what prompted the original comment about Sean and Strop, or why any of this was said....)

[Sean]

You win the title of 'Official Translator' Jim.

Well done!

[Gob]

I'm sorry Jim...

From the Mexican-Spanish verb chingar, meaning "to fuck". Implied meaning is "a lot" and translates directly into "a fuckload". Usually used with other Spanish words in the same English sentence. Mainly popular with Latinos

I think she wants a "load of fuck" off Scooter. I'm pretty sure she's not his type though.

[Sue U]

I have very little time right now so I apologize that I won't be able to get into any kind of extended serious discussion, maybe for a few days or more. But I wanted to quickly address a couple things directed to me.

Sue, I accept your apology and I know it is sincere because I have always liked and admired you and believed you to be an honorable woman.

That is why it hard for me to understand some of the things you believe, particularly your attitude towards communism. It appears to me that you correctly see Nazism as an evil but communism as benign. Before as I go any further I would like clarify something: I do not see all forms of socialism as the same. There is a big difference between Fabian socialism and Marxist communism; the difference can be measured in the body counts. Nazis and Communist may be motivated by different things but the end result is the same. If the country was about to be taken over by Nazi would it not be time for extreme measures or would you wait until the cattle cars arrived?

I have given your attitude towards Nazism and communism some thought and it makes me wonder; do you have family in Europe that has suffered at the hands of the Nazis?

First, liberty, thank you for your graciousness.

As to Nazism and Communism: There is nothing in any way redeeming about Nazism; it is an ideology that depends primarily on virulent racism and a strain of fascism that expressly rejects democracy; it necessarily functions only as a dictatorial autocratic system. Nazism is in every conceivable way antithetical to American constitutional principles and is properly fought tooth and nail by everyone who values democratic forms of goverment. The theoretical foundations of Communism, by contrast, call for democratic political processes to exert state control over capital and the means of production. It is designed to be a democratic form of both government and economic development. However, the Leninist constructs of a revolutionary vanguard party, a one-party state and "democratic centralism" applied through the party have been used as an excuse for top-down (and fundamentally anti-democratic) management of state affairs.

As to my own family history, yes, a substantial portion of my father's family was murdered by the Nazis, either outright or in the camps; shortly after the invasion of Poland none was heard from again. (I was named after one of these cousins.) I was raised with and was taught by close family friends who had fought first in the Lithuanian resistance and then with the Red Army. This is why I say that in the real world, when it matters most, there is a very significant difference between Nazis and Communists. Motivation does in fact matter. The official policy of systematic genocide that is the heart of Nazi ideology is a singular evil.

Sue, I recall that in the past you seem to have expressed this rather odd view of the left that precludes the possibility of leftist totalitarianism. I seem to remember your talking about favoring democracy being inherent to being a socialist. (Or something similar that was equally peculiar)

In your view, are none of the "gentlemen" on the list I posted "leftists"? That would certainly come as news to them. I've never known anyone else in my life, (and I know my share of lefties) who would attempt to argue that leftists can't be autocrats. Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems; Democratic Pluralism and Totalitarianism are political systems. There is absolutely nothing inherent about any economic system that precludes a dictatorial political system. (or a democratic one)

I won't say your view on this is unique, (There are six billion people on the planet; surely somebody else somewhere holds it) but it's at the least an extreme minority view. Leftists can embrace dictatorship just as easily as rightists can; history provides overwhelming proof for this.

Socialist and Communist theory provide for both political and economic organization, in contrast to, e.g., theories of liberal democracy, which address only the form of government and not its use to control capital and the economy. There is nothing inherent in democratic theory alone that either requires or prohibits, for example, private ownership of property or government regulation of the economy. Fascist theory provides for dictatorial control over ostensibly private property and subordinates (presumptively capitalist) economic activity to the state.

The "Communist" dictators of the 20th Century were, in my view, a product of the chaotic revolutions and political exigencies that brought them to power, not the product of Communist theory per se. Theory is nice, but when it comes to holding on to power, the temptation can obviously be overwhelming, especially where there are no countervailing institutions to ensure democracy. "Leninism" is fundamentally a series of justifications for ignoring those democratic pressures that are counter-revolutionary. That said, there is no reason why Communist parties cannot be part of -- and even effectively lead -- democratic societies (provided they abandon those portions of ideology that justify use of force to obtain power).

[Crackpot]

My Great Great grandfather spent some time in a Nazi work camp for suspicion of sabotaging his own crops. He was lucky in that his sentance was limited.